In response to Dave Morgan’s editorial entitled “Assets or Opportunity: Which Should Drive Your Growth Strategy?” at Mediapost, I offer the following…
Love the article, but disagree that you can’t say both because it’s about perspective. Parallel it to strategies of war... you have to play to your strengths. If you have assets of value that are worth or in need of protection, you can still navigate new markets to achieve growth, but it’s more likely to be based on a defensive strategy that yields incremental growth. If you’re a startup, you have an opportunity to take guerilla-like risks in new or emerging markets to spark change, yield massive growth… or go down in flames trying.
Game changers like once start-up Netflix (massive growth) wouldn’t exist or be able to continue innovating without the deep pocketed studios (healthy incremental growth) with massive back libraries of content.
Also, only considering “game changers” on the opportunity side isn’t a complete way to form an opinion. There are more Alta Vistas and Friendsters that have been left on the side of the road than there are Googles and Facebooks paving it. “Old world” public companies have pressures that limit risk taking, and successful game changers almost always become old companies to a newer breed of start-ups.
In the interest of sport, I’ll commit to the opportunity side because I’m much more excited by disrupting the way things have been done in the past than I am in the status quo. Perhaps I’d feel differently had I been born into Charles Foster Kane‘s dynasty.